05-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Interestingly, the liberal camp points out the inconsistencies in holding to an old earth while trying to cling to evangelical Christianity. For instance, Bishop John Shelby Spong, the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, states:
[INDENT]The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation ... . Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries ... . Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative.11[/INDENT]
This is an obvious reference to the millions of years associated with the fossil record. The god of an old earth is one who uses death as part of creating. Death, therefore, can’t be the penalty for sin and can’t be described as the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).
The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.
People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.
The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent His one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sinbearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.
Door of Compromise
Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.
In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).
The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions.
Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture (“according to the Scriptures”.
And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture (“In six days the Lord made ...”.
The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is No. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: “Then God said ... .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...used-evolution
[INDENT]The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world from which human beings had fallen away in an act of cosmic rebellion. Original sin was the reality in which all life was presumed to live. Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation ... . Human beings did not fall from perfection into sin as the Church had taught for centuries ... . Thus the basic myth of Christianity that interpreted Jesus as a divine emissary who came to rescue the victims of the fall from the results of their original sin became inoperative.11[/INDENT]
This is an obvious reference to the millions of years associated with the fossil record. The god of an old earth is one who uses death as part of creating. Death, therefore, can’t be the penalty for sin and can’t be described as the last enemy (1 Corinthians 15:26).
The god of an old earth cannot therefore be the God of the Bible who is able to save us from sin and death. Thus, when Christians compromise with the millions of years attributed by many scientists to the fossil record, they are, in that sense, seemingly worshipping a different god—the cruel god of an old earth.
People must remember that God created a perfect world; so when they look at this present world, they are not looking at the nature of God but at the results of our sin.
The God of the Bible, the God of mercy, grace, and love, sent His one and only Son to become a man (but God nonetheless), to become our sinbearer so that we could be saved from sin and eternal separation from God. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
There’s no doubt—the god of an old earth destroys the gospel.
Door of Compromise
Now it is true that rejection of six literal days doesn’t ultimately affect one’s salvation, if one is truly born again. However, we need to stand back and look at the big picture.
In many nations, the Word of God was once widely respected and taken seriously. But once the door of compromise is unlocked, once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12).
The battle is not one of young earth vs. old earth, or billions of years vs. six days, or creation vs. evolution—the real battle is the authority of the Word of God vs. man’s fallible opinions.
Why do Christians believe in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because of the words of Scripture (“according to the Scriptures”.
And why should Christians believe in the six literal days of creation? Because of the words of Scripture (“In six days the Lord made ...”.
The real issue is one of authority—is God’s Word the authority, or is man’s word the authority? So, couldn’t God have used evolution to create? The answer is No. A belief in millions of years of evolution not only contradicts the clear teaching of Genesis and the rest of Scripture but also impugns the character of God. He told us in the book of Genesis that He created the whole universe and everything in it in six days by His word: “Then God said ... .” His Word is the evidence of how and when God created, and His Word is incredibly clear.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...used-evolution
Messages In This Thread
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-12-2008, 12:36 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-12-2008, 12:37 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-12-2008, 02:16 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-12-2008, 03:01 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-12-2008, 04:53 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-13-2008, 09:47 AM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-13-2008, 04:39 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-14-2008, 01:24 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-14-2008, 02:27 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-14-2008, 02:32 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-14-2008, 02:52 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-14-2008, 03:03 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-14-2008, 03:33 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-14-2008, 03:51 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-14-2008, 04:04 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-14-2008, 04:24 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-14-2008, 05:17 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-14-2008, 07:33 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-15-2008, 09:32 AM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-15-2008, 02:44 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-15-2008, 04:11 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-15-2008, 04:24 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BFritz - 05-15-2008, 05:58 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-15-2008, 07:46 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-15-2008, 07:49 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-16-2008, 08:49 AM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-16-2008, 10:10 AM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-16-2008, 11:30 AM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-16-2008, 11:51 AM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by thecavemaster - 05-16-2008, 12:23 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by BaseballMan - 05-16-2008, 03:49 PM
Couldn't God have used evolution? - by ComfortEagle - 05-20-2008, 04:08 AM
Users browsing this thread: 7 Guest(s)